The University of Iowa College of Law dodged a potential employment discrimination verdict in a case tried in Davenport last week. But the case could still come back to haunt the university.

Regardless of the outcome, this case raises questions about the hiring policies at the University of Iowa College of Law, and perhaps in the university as a whole. The U of I respects the goal of diversity for race, religion and gender, but it should show the same respect for diversity of political thought.

This case involves a lawsuit filed by Teresa Wagner against the law school after she was turned down for a faculty position in the legal analysis, writing and research program. Wagner is a Republican who has worked for anti-abortion organizations. She alleged that she was passed over the position not because she lacked the qualifications but because she was blackballed by liberal members of the law school faculty.

The law school denied politics were involved in the decision not to hire her. The university claimed Wagner was turned down because she had performed poorly in an interview. …

Some testimony in this case was troubling. Wagner was turned down despite enthusiastic praise for her interview performance by members of the faculty appointments committee and members of the law school administration. Not all on the faculty were supportive, however. Carolyn Jones, the law school dean at the time, said she rejected Wagner for a faculty position because of opposition within the faculty. According to testimony, Jones said “she always adopts the faculty’s recommendations.”

Faculty members testified that they opposed hiring Wagner because she had performed poorly in the job interview. But an associate dean expressed concern in an email that Wagner might be opposed by professors who “so despise her politics.”

Whether a new trial is justified for this case, it raises important questions that should ultimately be resolved by Iowa courts.

Institutional bias against conservatives is a given. In many schools, the problem goes from top to bottom, from university president down to nontenured faculty. It’s hard to see how the institution itself can be held blameless with such pervasive, and widespread discrimination shown against those who disagree politically with the majority. It is tolerated — even encouraged — and it has to stop.

That said, the law specifically targets individuals. You might sue the university president or, as in the case of Wagner, individual decision makers in the law school. But the university is many separate entities and an interesting question would be how you could hold the athletic department, or sociology department responsible for the actions of the law school? It might be emotionally satisfying to say that Harvard discriminates against conservatives, but specific examples would show that most of the school was blameless in discriminating against that particular individual.

Making schools out to be lawbreakers rather than simply hypocrites for claiming diversity where none exists will be difficult. But perhaps that’s part of the answer in getting schools to live up to their lofty words about academic freedom and diversity by hiring more conservative professors for their faculty.

8 Comments, 6 Threads

1.
spinoneone

Lofty words about “diversity” and “non-biased” policies mean nothing to the University where its left-wing politics is concerned. The ends justify the means and the ends mean “winning.” Ergo, not hiring a “conservative” is in line with the core beliefs of the institution.

Perhaps conservative organizations should form a sanctioning body that sanctions educational institutions that discriminate against conservatives, publishes its findings, and encourages employers not to hire the institutions’ graduates on the grounds that they have been insufficiently exposed to a broad spectrum of legal and other thought.

Way too little, way too late. The turkey is well over-done. Comrades. Recognize and learn the new rules, that is the only way to thrive or survive. Any titles you could point me to? Shawn, Mark, and Rush may have been right. I am sure they will be comfortable. We are awakening into unknown dung. You can’t fix stupid especially when it is institutionalized. Sailing anyone?j

Yes, but how else do you affect change? Burn it down? I was in college in the early 70s and extreme correctness was already prevalent. The way I won was to play the game once I understood it. It only hardened my resolve to this day. I am well past pissed.
Hit them in the pocket book; personally and institutionally. Limit Federal funding to the entire the institution until there is documented inclusion, just like affirmative action. McCarthy and Ann Coulter were both right. These places are just places for indoctrination not education. As a conservative, I applied to my Alma Mater law school after graduating 3.85 in science. No chance. No donations period. No. No. No. Sorry, I said I was way passed pissed.j

Some individual at the school is responsible for the ultimate decision and that person</I should be held personally liable for unlawful discrimination in not tendering a position, just the same as if the discrimination was on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation. If the decision is by a committee vote then that committee has engaged in a conspiracy to deny the applicant her civil rights and members should be held liable individually and collectively.

But the university is many separate entities and an interesting question would be how you could hold the athletic department, or sociology department responsible for the actions of the law school?

The laws providing for ‘class action’ remedies for discrimination rode roughshod over such precious details in the organizations of private employers. So some rough riding would be ‘justice’ as well in the case of university viewpoint exclusions in hiring.